從人權報導觀點分析五地10報新疆衝突報導框架

How Different Newspapers Cover Xingjian Conflicts from Human Right Perspective? A Frame Analysis of 10 Newspapers from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Britain and Unites States

近年來新疆族群衝突事件頻發，對於這些涉及生命財產、社會秩序、族群治理等爭議之事件，本研究援用人權的觀點，採取內容分析的方式，針對我國及中國、香港、英、美等共10份主要報紙，比較其報導新疆衝突事件的異同。研究發現中共「官方維穩框架」為主的報導，主要強調「生命及財產」損失及「經濟社會」秩序維穩的必要，屬於第一代和第二代的人權訴求，但忽略「自由權」和「法律權」等屬於第一代公民權的訴求，也完全未曾報導「族群自決」相關的第三代人權的內涵。中央黨媒和市場導向媒體並無差異。偏「民間抗爭框架」的報導則多兼採官方和民間的來源，除了「生命財產」權外，也多報導「自由權」和「法律權」受限以及「族群自決」的問題。臺灣4份報紙部份偏向官方框架，部份偏民間框架，但均較少關注族群自決的面向。英、美2份質報人權報導面向較多元，但均未報導經濟社會權面向。

Drastic increase of riots has been noted in Xingjian, the far-western Chinese region, in recent years, resulting in international media concerns about its ethnic conflicts, terrorism and human rights abuses. How different newspapers covered those conflict events from the human rights perspective? The paper aims to analyze different news frames of 10 newspapers: 4 major Taiwan newspapers, 2 China's major newspapers, 2 Hong Kong newspapers, New York Times of US and The Guardian in Britain. Adopting a content analysis of 7 major Xingjian riots coverage during 2013/06 to 2013/12, the research finds out that there are 2 major frames, one is the China official frame, which shows less news sources with one-sided pro-regime position, accusing the protesters, concerning less human rights abuses. While the. ＂critical frame＂ demonstrates more news sources from different positions, accusing both the regime and the protesters, and covering more human rights abuses.